Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 25, 2024 Thu
Time: 1:20 pm
Time: 1:20 pm
Results for classification
2 results foundAuthor: Baird, Chris Title: A Comparison of Risk Assessment Instruments in Juvenile Justice Summary: Juvenile justice service staff began exploring the use of actuarial risk assessments that classify offenders by the likelihood of future delinquency with earnest in the 1970s, but actuarial risk assessments have been used by public social service agencies in the United States since 1928. The value and utility of a valid, reliable, and equitable risk assessment within a broader practice reform effort was made clear to justice agencies in 1998 when the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) published the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. OJJDP's reform effort illustrated how juvenile justice agencies could better ensure the effectiveness and appropriate targeting of services by implementing both an actuarial risk assessment to accurately, reliably, and equitably classify youth by the likelihood of future delinquency and an equally effective needs assessment to identify an intervention and treatment plan tailored to an individual's needs. This approach built upon the efforts of the National Institute of Corrections' Model Probation/Parole Management Project that combined actuarial risk assessment, individual needs assessment for effective treatment planning, regular reassessments of risk and needs and risk-based supervision standards, and workload-based budgeting. Other models of risk assessment were introduced over subsequent decades, and researchers began categorizing and comparing them as generations of risk assessments. The first generation of risk assessments were not actuarial- individual workers assigned risk levels without the aid of actuarial instruments. Generation 2 instruments were statistically derived, but relied heavily on static criminal history factors to assess risk. They tended to be developed using local data for specific jurisdictions, typically consisted of fewer than a dozen factors (e.g., the California Base Expectancy Tables developed in the 1960s), and focused on identifying groups of offenders with distinctly different risks of future offending. Many of today's instruments, often referred to as generation 3 or generation 4, have expanded beyond the singular objective of risk assessment to classify individuals by risk of delinquency. These instruments often contain dozens of factors (for example, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling and Alternative Sanctions [COMPAS] Youth risk assessment instrument). They frequently divide risk factors into two groups: "static" and "dynamic" (see, for example, Schwalbe, 2008; Hoge, 2002). Static factors are generally measures of prior delinquency. Dynamic factors are commonly referred to as "criminogenic needs" and represent conditions or circumstances that can improve over time (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006). In addition, protective factors and references to "responsivity" have been added to generation 4 instruments. Responsivity is intended to reflect an individual's readiness for change and gauge a youth's ability to respond to particular treatment methods and programs (Andrews, 1990). Generation 4 instruments contain anywhere from 42 to approximately 150 factors. These variations in methodology and philosophy raised questions about which types of instruments most accurately and effectively help jurisdictions differentiate between low-, moderate-, and high-risk youth. Many evaluations of risk assessments based validity on correlation coefficients or other measures of association. Those that examined the degree of difference in recidivism rates observed for youth identified as low, moderate, or high risk often found little differentiation; results could vary substantially by race, ethnicity, and gender. Few jurisdictions conducted local validation studies to ensure a risk assessment's validity and reliability, and now one foundation-funded reform effort is telling agencies that local validation is not required if an instrument has been validated in three agencies or for similar populations. Perhaps the most significant change in the last few decades has been the emergence of commercially available risk assessment systems. Prior to this development, risk assessment studies were generally conducted by universities, nonprofit research organizations, or research units within government agencies. Claims made about the validity and reliability of some of these tools have been challenged by other researchers (Skeem & Eno Louden, 2007; Baird, 2009). In response to concerns about the classification and predictive validity of several risk assessments voiced by juvenile justice practitioners and researchers, OJJDP funded a proposal submitted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) to evaluate commonly used risk assessments by comparing their predictive validity, reliability, equity, and cost. NCCD is a nonprofit social research organization, and its researchers conducted the study of eight risk assessments in 10 jurisdictions in consultation with an advisory board of juvenile justice researchers and developers of commercial juvenile justice risk assessment systems included in the study. Details: Oakland, CA(?): National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2013. 541p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/244477.pdf Shelf Number: 132109 Keywords: ClassificationJuvenile Justice SystemsPredictionRecidivismReoffendingRisk Assessment Instruments |
Author: Ristroph, Alice Title: Farewell to the Felonry Summary: Bastard. Idiot. Imbecile. Pauper. Felon. These terms, medieval in origin, have served as formal legal designations and also the brands of substantial social stigma. As legal designations, the terms marked persons for different sorts of membership in a political community. The rights and privileges of these persons could be restricted or denied altogether. Today, most of these terms have been abandoned as labels for official classifications. But the terms felon and felony remain central to American criminal law, even after other developed democracies have formally abolished the felon/felony category. "Felony" has connotations of extreme wickedness and an especially severe crime, but the official legal meaning of felony is a pure legal construct: any crime punishable by more than a year in prison. So many and such disparate crimes are now felonies that there is no unifying principle to justify the classification. And yet, the designation of a crime as a felony, or of a person as a felon, still carries great significance. Even beyond the well-documented "collateral" consequences of a felony conviction, the classification of persons as felons is central to the mechanics of mass incarceration and to inequality both in and out of the criminal justice system. American law provides the felonry - the group of persons convicted of felonies - a form of subordinate political membership that contrasts with the rights and privileges of the full-fledged citizenry. The felon should go the way of the bastard, into the dustbins of legal history. If that outcome seems unlikely, it is worth asking why a category long known to be incoherent should be so difficult to remove from the law. This Article examines felony in order to scrutinize more broadly the conceptual structure of criminal law. Criminal laws, and even their most common critiques and arguments for reform, often appeal to the same naturalistic understanding of crime and punishment that gives felon its social meaning. When we imagine crime as a natural, pre-legal wrong and the criminal as intrinsically deserving of suffering, we displace responsibility for the law's burdens from the community that enacts the law and the officials that enforce it. To bid farewell to the felonry could be a first step toward reclaiming responsibility for our criminal law. Details: Brooklyn, NY: Brooklyn Law School, 2018. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2019 at: http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Ristroph.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3280347 Shelf Number: 154259 Keywords: ClassificationFelonFelonyIdentityLabeling TheoryMass IncarcerationSocial Stigma |